Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Citing a league source, the Plain Dealer is reporting that the Browns have re-signed free agent CB Dimitri Patterson to a three-year deal totaling $16 million ($6 million guaranteed). Patterson was used primarily in the nickel last year, but will likely start in 2012, with Sheldon Brown moving to safety.

Team president Mike Holmgren told season ticket holders the Browns will probably use their three picks in the top 37 for offensive weapons, according to the Plain Dealer. He added that he will discourage GM Tom Heckert from trading down from No. 4. Heckert dealt the No. 6 pick in 2011, which Atlanta used to snag WR Julio Jones.

I am not a fan of Blackmon at #4. If they feel that they need to get a WR that high I think Floyd is going to be tbe better Pro.

I definitely think they should be attempting to trade down if we are going offensive with those picks.

Remember they had no interest in trading up for RGIII

I think that was right as they were offering 3 #1s

What are you referencing there? I never said they didn't have interest in trading up I said they wanted to but would fail.

General statement. Saying they could be messing with Rams who they feel effed them on RGIII trade. Can't trust what anyone says as Heckert said day before RGIII trade that Browns weren't looking to move up. But that wasn't true and neither might this be.

He should've lied and said they weren't willing to give all those picks up. At least then it was their choice, not they got out-bid in a blind auction or screwed over by STL b/c of Fisher & Shanahan's friendship, either of which makes them look somewhat incompetent.

He should've lied and said they weren't willing to give all those picks up. At least then it was their choice, not they got out-bid in a blind auction or screwed over by STL b/c of Fisher & Shanahan's friendship, either of which makes them look somewhat incompetent.

You cannot believe that. The cleanest way is to act like you did everything in your power and got screwed over. Then you could get on a conference call with your season ticket holders and convince them you are doing whatever you can, but the entire world has conspired to make sure you cannot be successful .

He should've lied and said they weren't willing to give all those picks up. At least then it was their choice, not they got out-bid in a blind auction or screwed over by STL b/c of Fisher & Shanahan's friendship, either of which makes them look somewhat incompetent.

You cannot believe that. The cleanest way is to act like you did everything in your power and got screwed over. Then you could get on a conference call with your season ticket holders and convince them you are doing whatever you can, but the entire world has conspired to make sure you cannot be successful .

I can and I do.

Most people seem like they agree with you - they are comforted somewhat by the fact that the Browns at least tried. They are further mollified by STL being evil nepotism-ers.

I'm not a fan that they're portraying themselves as victims. I would prefer that the Browns were in control of the situation and made the decision themselves and are ready to live with the consequences or lack thereof.

"We decided the price was too high and walked away."

That way, if RG3 sucks, they look like genuises. But with their story, they either look like guys that can't get their shit done if RG3 is good or guys that got really lucky if RG3 sucks.

I have absolutely no problem with H&H being imperious and arrogant and telling fans "We're going to do things the way we want and we don't care how you feel about it"... as long as they're right.

He should've lied and said they weren't willing to give all those picks up. At least then it was their choice, not they got out-bid in a blind auction or screwed over by STL b/c of Fisher & Shanahan's friendship, either of which makes them look somewhat incompetent.

You cannot believe that. The cleanest way is to act like you did everything in your power and got screwed over. Then you could get on a conference call with your season ticket holders and convince them you are doing whatever you can, but the entire world has conspired to make sure you cannot be successful .

I can and I do.

Most people seem like they agree with you - they are comforted somewhat by the fact that the Browns at least tried. They are further mollified by STL being evil nepotism-ers.

I'm not a fan that they're portraying themselves as victims. I would prefer that the Browns were in control of the situation and made the decision themselves and are ready to live with the consequences or lack thereof.

"We decided the price was too high and walked away."

That way, if RG3 sucks, they look like genuises. But with their story, they either look like guys that can't get their shit done if RG3 is good or guys that got really lucky if RG3 sucks.

I have absolutely no problem with H&H being imperious and arrogant and telling fans "We're going to do things the way we want and we don't care how you feel about it"... as long as they're right.

Now that is something we agree on.

I just don't think they are close enough to be right enough so far to cut them any slack. They are at this point inept as a group. When they get better at their jobs, I will be the first to say so.

pup wrote:I just don't think they are close enough to be right enough so far to cut them any slack. They are at this point inept as a group. When they get better at their jobs, I will be the first to say so.

Fair enough.

The way I see it is that their overall performance is like a class, and each decision is a quiz or test.

Some tests they fail. Some they don't. But no tests should be graded based upon how they did on the previous test(s). It's unfair to them and doesn't allow for the (fading) possibility that they can bring their grade up before the semester ends.

And it's certainly unfair to grade them based upon how other students did in previous years.

I had a professor once who didn't speak English very well and thought I insulted him with something I said in class (which I did not, at least not to his face). After that, it didn't matter what I did, he was killing my grade.

pup wrote:I just don't think they are close enough to be right enough so far to cut them any slack. They are at this point inept as a group. When they get better at their jobs, I will be the first to say so.

Fair enough.

The way I see it is that their overall performance is like a class, and each decision is a quiz or test.

Some tests they fail. Some they don't. But no tests should be graded based upon how they did on the previous test(s). It's unfair to them and doesn't allow for the (fading) possibility that they can bring their grade up before the semester ends.

And it's certainly unfair to grade them based upon how other students did in previous years.

I had a professor once who didn't speak English very well and thought I insulted him with something I said in class (which I did not, at least not to his face). After that, it didn't matter what I did, he was killing my grade.

Don't be that no-English-speaking bastage.

Isn't your grade the accumulation of all those quizzes and tests? I see no reason to have their grade calculated on only the latest, but as an overall. And that grade is real bad.

pup wrote:I just don't think they are close enough to be right enough so far to cut them any slack. They are at this point inept as a group. When they get better at their jobs, I will be the first to say so.

Fair enough.

The way I see it is that their overall performance is like a class, and each decision is a quiz or test.

Some tests they fail. Some they don't. But no tests should be graded based upon how they did on the previous test(s). It's unfair to them and doesn't allow for the (fading) possibility that they can bring their grade up before the semester ends.

And it's certainly unfair to grade them based upon how other students did in previous years.

I had a professor once who didn't speak English very well and thought I insulted him with something I said in class (which I did not, at least not to his face). After that, it didn't matter what I did, he was killing my grade.

Don't be that no-English-speaking bastage.

Isn't your grade the accumulation of all those quizzes and tests? I see no reason to have their grade calculated on only the latest, but as an overall. And that grade is real bad.

Of course their grade is the accumulation. But just because their overall grade is a D doesn't mean that I don't bother to grade their next test.

pup wrote:I just don't think they are close enough to be right enough so far to cut them any slack. They are at this point inept as a group. When they get better at their jobs, I will be the first to say so.

Fair enough.

The way I see it is that their overall performance is like a class, and each decision is a quiz or test.

Some tests they fail. Some they don't. But no tests should be graded based upon how they did on the previous test(s). It's unfair to them and doesn't allow for the (fading) possibility that they can bring their grade up before the semester ends.

And it's certainly unfair to grade them based upon how other students did in previous years.

I had a professor once who didn't speak English very well and thought I insulted him with something I said in class (which I did not, at least not to his face). After that, it didn't matter what I did, he was killing my grade.

Don't be that no-English-speaking bastage.

Isn't your grade the accumulation of all those quizzes and tests? I see no reason to have their grade calculated on only the latest, but as an overall. And that grade is real bad.

Of course their grade is the accumulation. But just because their overall grade is a D doesn't mean that I don't bother to grade their next test.

But if that next test is another D at some point you can stop grading those tests.

pup wrote:I just don't think they are close enough to be right enough so far to cut them any slack. They are at this point inept as a group. When they get better at their jobs, I will be the first to say so.

Fair enough.

The way I see it is that their overall performance is like a class, and each decision is a quiz or test.

Some tests they fail. Some they don't. But no tests should be graded based upon how they did on the previous test(s). It's unfair to them and doesn't allow for the (fading) possibility that they can bring their grade up before the semester ends.

And it's certainly unfair to grade them based upon how other students did in previous years.

I had a professor once who didn't speak English very well and thought I insulted him with something I said in class (which I did not, at least not to his face). After that, it didn't matter what I did, he was killing my grade.

Don't be that no-English-speaking bastage.

Isn't your grade the accumulation of all those quizzes and tests? I see no reason to have their grade calculated on only the latest, but as an overall. And that grade is real bad.

Of course their grade is the accumulation. But just because their overall grade is a D doesn't mean that I don't bother to grade their next test.

But if that next test is another D at some point you can stop grading those tests.

pup wrote:I just don't think they are close enough to be right enough so far to cut them any slack. They are at this point inept as a group. When they get better at their jobs, I will be the first to say so.

Fair enough.

The way I see it is that their overall performance is like a class, and each decision is a quiz or test.

Some tests they fail. Some they don't. But no tests should be graded based upon how they did on the previous test(s). It's unfair to them and doesn't allow for the (fading) possibility that they can bring their grade up before the semester ends.

And it's certainly unfair to grade them based upon how other students did in previous years.

I had a professor once who didn't speak English very well and thought I insulted him with something I said in class (which I did not, at least not to his face). After that, it didn't matter what I did, he was killing my grade.

Don't be that no-English-speaking bastage.

Isn't your grade the accumulation of all those quizzes and tests? I see no reason to have their grade calculated on only the latest, but as an overall. And that grade is real bad.

Of course their grade is the accumulation. But just because their overall grade is a D doesn't mean that I don't bother to grade their next test.

But if that next test is another D at some point you can stop grading those tests.

Then it's probably a good thing you're not a teacher.

SD:

If you pay an asshole 50 million to make A's what should yuo do with his dumb ass when everything comes back D's

You mean it's BAD if we evaluate a student based on the test results of previous students?

I knew something was fishy about the originl No Child Left Behind Act.

In todays educational world if struggling student continues to struggle we differentiate instruction and then maybe get them a 504 or IEP...do you think they have those for football execs? We might toss one in for the owner too while we are at it.

Now if Manning were to land in San Francisco, the league exec believes that last year's starter Alex Smith will land with the Cleveland Browns, who runs a Smith-friendly West Coast offense under head coach Pat Shurmur.

Charlie Donovan: How would you like to sign Alex Smith to the Browns?Lou Brown: Gee, I don't know... Charlie Donovan: What do you mean, you don't know? This is your chance to have a starting QBLou Brown: Let me get back to you, will ya, Charlie? I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Now if Manning were to land in San Francisco, the league exec believes that last year's starter Alex Smith will land with the Cleveland Browns, who runs a Smith-friendly West Coast offense under head coach Pat Shurmur.

Hey, Alex Smith was one fumble away from the Su- pfffffffffhahahahahahahahahahahaha

"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT

If I'm Alex Smith I'm going to Miami. They're about desperate and if I'm him I leverage that deal for my financial well-being and I shove my foot up the ass of the 49ers at the same time. Then I hope Manning goes to Tennessee.

If I'm Alex Smith I'm going to Miami. They're about desperate and if I'm him I leverage that deal for my financial well-being and I shove my foot up the ass of the 49ers at the same time. Then I hope Manning goes to Tennessee.

pup wrote:Absolutely beside myself when I thought they might consider passing on elite QB's to wait and draft Tannehill at 37.

Now we are going to take him at 4?

Is that when we are allowed to panic?

If you can muster up enough energy, have at it.

I fully expect the worst to happen at all times, so when it does, meh.

So I'll shrug and start seeing who my adopt-a-team might be looking at. Think I'm going to choose one early this year. My last 4 were Cards, Saints, Pack, & Lions, so at least my adopted children have been succeeding (granted, I usually pick them 4 or 5 weeks into the season).

I'd honestly rather have Weeden. I don't give a shit if Weeden and I graduated high school the same year.

Tannehill at #4 is pure panic. If you you loved him so much at #4 you'd have NEVER offered three #1's to move up for someone else.

Per usual, I agree.

I wouldn't not take him, but I wouldn't take him before Weeden, and I wouldn't take him before 37.

And the bolded part is dead right. If you think a QB is good enough to be taken at #4 overall, then you don't need to sacrifice 3 1's to move up 2 spots. So if you don't have him valued as a #4 overall guy, then you don't take him there just to take a QB.

on the defensive side, I'm iffy on taking another corner. I mean, I can validate taking a defensive player if he's in the mold of a Urlacher, R. Lewis, Mario Williams, Suh, Polamalu, Peppers. He's got to be the ultimate game changer though, a leader, a guy that would make an all-pro team. That's your justification for going defense with the 4th or possibly 6th after we've traded down pick. I'm not so sure if just adding him, would do that.

QB? You fucked that up. so, unless you're thinking of adding Orton or Campbell (Who'd I'd be for, because at least they'd be competent), You're stuck with a guy under center who's not going to succeed unless you start to give him at least someone to help him on offense. A right tackle is definitely needed, but Minnesota has Kalil all but locked up at that spot, and I don't think the fans will be too pleased with such a pick.

So, to me? Down to just a two horse race between Richardson and Blackmon.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

In a vaccumm, cause I don't want to open up a can of worms claiming I know what the Browns did or didn't offer in the RG3 negotiations but....

What's a bigger gamble, or should I say what's the lousier gamble - giving up what the Skins gave up for RG3 or drafting Ryan Tannehill 4th overall. Christ, it's not even close.

And Ryan Tanneyhill, wherever drafted - and no matter what you project for him, clearly needs to go to a team that can afford to sit him for a couple years, cause one of the chief reasons that cat couldn't get it done against good collegiate teams was cause he wasn't ready. Anyone who thinks he's close to ready for the NFL was watching different games than I.